Originally Posted by Feesherman (Post 443090)

You're a funny little man. So there is no biological data, just opinions of the biologists.

Originally Posted by ckinchen (Post 443088)

Seems like it is about time to close this thread, the horse is dead. Most agree there was no study or true science involved in the reduction. The group is split on rather or not they should go back now and try to do something about it. Salty Cajun will only fight the oyster issue or weir management so I think we are done here unless you guys want to continue for 20 more pages which is fine as well. Those that want to do something about it will follow W to Baton Rouge and the rest of us will work in our office or at least be office fishermen and see how it goes.

Hopefuly W's political connection Dan Morrish his "family friend" does not take a stand on this against the increase or those of your following W will find yourselves alone on the front line. If history is an indicator he will do a 180 like he did on the oyster issue and fight against you guys. Of course he will never admit he changed sides, you just have to figure that out yourselves.

Thanks everyone for your contributions.

Originally Posted by Feesherman (Post 443090)

You're a funny little man. So there is no biological data, just opinions of the biologists.

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 443092)

Why would you close it??? Were making you buddy look like a idiot more and more

Or that mathgeek is the smartest person on this site

Originally Posted by MathGeek (Post 443091)

W's theory (as I understand it) has two main parts:

1. There was no scientific basis to change the limit from 25 to 15.
2. The Calcasieu estuary would be more likely to produce more large trout if the limit were changed back from 15 to 25.

In support of part 1 (no scientific basis for limit change to 15), it has been pointed out in W's thread that:

1A. The original rule change was motivated by political rather than scientific factors.
1B. LDWF biologists openly stated that there was no biological need for the rule change.
1C. An LSU PhD Thesis states: Stock assessments periodically conducted by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), the agency that assesses, manages, and protects the state’s fisheries resources, suggest that Louisiana’s spotted seatrout population is abundant, in good health, and not overfished (LDWF 1997; Blanchet et al. 2001). Indeed, fishing regulations for the recreational sector have remained unchanged since 1988, except for the recent (2006) implementation of more stringent creel and size limits in the southwestern portion of the state (Cameron and Calcasieu parishes), which was largely due to socio-economic factors rather than compromised productivity of the stock.
See: http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/et...lihan_diss.pdf I think there were even more facts brought out into the discussion in support for W's theory. But the most telling thing (in my opinion) is that with such a long discussion, no one really brought anything approaching a scientific argument to the table in support of the limit change to 15.

In support of part 2 of W's theory (a limit change back to 25 would produce more bigger trout), it has been pointed out in W's thread that:

2A. An angler who fishes the estuary over 100 days a year is seeing far fewer large trout than before the limit change.
2B. The tournaments since the limit change in 2006 are recording far fewer of the largest trout than the tournaments before 2006.
2C. The available data suggest that while the trout in the Calcasieu estuary were fatter than the Louisiana average before 2006, the trout are thinner than the Louisiana average after 2006. This suggests an overabundance of trout relative to their food sources after the limit change. It is well known in fisheries science that reducing a population of fish relative to their food sources will probably produce faster growth and larger fish.

I would say the facts are compelling, though not conclusive.:work:

Originally Posted by Armand16 (Post 443094)

I say continue, let it go on until it dies. I would also like to see a poll as to what people think about changing the limit back based on these recent discussions. Just to see what kinda progress ole W is makin.

Originally Posted by ckinchen (Post 443095)

Can you come up with some new material at least? We have to moderate all of this mess and after 20 pages I think "we" have covered everything.

Well everything except for your flip flop over your policies friend and your role in the CCA board of directors immediately after the limit change. Other than that I think we are all clear.

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 443100)

How about we put all the facts and documents on a new post and make it a sticky

Originally Posted by ckinchen (Post 443095)

Can you come up with some new material at least? We have to moderate all of this mess and after 20 pages I think "we" have covered everything.

Well everything except for your flip flop over your political friend and your role in the CCA board of directors immediately after the limit change. Other than that I think we are all clear.

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 443104)

I like the word
Filibuster

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 443100)

How about we put all the facts and documents on a new post and make it a sticky

Originally Posted by jdm4x43732 (Post 443105)

I guess the boss has spoken:eek:

Originally Posted by ckinchen (Post 443109)

No on that one, I have lost enough bandwith on this month, I will have to pay extra for this mess.

Originally Posted by jdm4x43732 (Post 443106)

Damn "W" I checked it and you spelled Filibuster correctly! You on a roll

25 or bust

Originally Posted by "W" (Post 443092)

Why would you close it??? Were making you buddy look like a idiot more and more

Or that mathgeek is the smartest person on this site

Originally Posted by Salty (Post 443117)

Well, one thing's for sure...he ain't the dumbest.

Originally Posted by Micah (Post 443113)

Copy n paste